Are There Scriptures That Say...?

[TCGreek]

Now what makes you so sarcastic. Is there "survival instinct?" Did you cry when you were hungry? when you hurt? when you wanted attention? when you didn't get your way? See how that works?? See the progression toward sin?

1. Do you supposed Christ cried when He was born? Was He ever hungry? How should we answer those question in light of Jesus, while keeping our sanity?

That's the theory, anyway. In your estimation, Judas got his monaker before he was born, not after Jesus named him? But I see that Jesus already foreknew that he was a devil -- He even said so. The point is, God didn't "twist Judas arm," Satan did. But you put God in Satan's place. I suppose he was born possessed like every other infant?

2. Luke 22:22 says, "For indeed, the Son of Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man through whom He is betrayed." From this I gather the compatibilist view, which says that God is 100% sovereign in his determinate will and man is 100% responsible for his actions.

Ha! I thought you had cited the wrong verse so I looked back and forth without discovering it! :laugh: Yes, this remnant is according to NT belief. They are the "natural branches" that were not "cut off" and replaced because these DID believe on Christ! Even in the trib there will be this "remnant" -- the 2 witnesses. All other believers will be raptured!

3. Jews who are being saved are chosen Jews (Rom 11:7), but on Israel as a whole there's a partial hardening until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in, and then God turns to eschatological Israel (vv.25ff).

Not really. What if it is "aborted" as so many are today? Suppose they are "drawn" but "draw back?" You speak as if only the elect respond so that the process is "seamless," as they say. Wrong! All are drawn -- only some complete the "process."

4. Now you make man sovereign in salvation. Those who complete the process, Are they more noble than those who didn't?

 

[skypair]

1. Do you suppose Christ cried when He was born? Was He ever hungry? How should we answer those question in light of Jesus, while keeping our sanity?

Yeah, He did. My more important thought was why didn't Adam? He NEVER had that instinct, right? Is it just because we are "needy" and "dependent" that we sin and become sinners? I think that is the more appropriate question, don't you?

But God changed everything so that it was corrupt and dependent on Him.

2. Luke 22:22 says, "For indeed, the Son of Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man through whom He is betrayed." From this I gather the compatibilist view, which says that God is 100% sovereign in his determinate will and man is 100% responsible for his actions.

That is a plausible explanation. It only leaves out one thing -- that God foreknows all this before He foreordains it. Did you ever plan something and it work out just like you thought it would? God's plans always work out the way He thought they would because He foresaw them, right?

I'm all with the "election" you see but to me it doesn't mean "God chosen" -- it means "God ordained." He foreknows and if there were any "issues," He would take care of them BEFORE ordaining they transpire.

3. Jews who are being saved are chosen Jews (Rom 11:7), but on Israel as a whole there's a partial hardening until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in, and then God turns to eschatological Israel (vv.25ff).

Think about this --- the Israel of Christ's time WAS eschatological Israel. They were actually "hardened" (like Pharoah) by their leaders' rejections. This is the thing about authority -- they needed to accept Him religiously like Adam, "for the people" -- "federally." They choose the secular destiny for the people just like Adam chose the physical destiny (not spiritual) of all mankind.

Now look at Joel 2. They DO turn to Him. Now their secular destiny is with God because the leaders call a fast and turn to God, right?

4. Now you make man sovereign in salvation. Those who complete the process, Are they more noble than those who didn't?

TC -- have we not gotten any farther than these "Jim Jones CULT suspicions" of me?? Did you read my testimony??

I make it man's responsibility to accept God's proposal of "marriage." Did you abandon all your plans and "cleave" unto your wife when you proposed? Were you "sovereign" or was she when she accepted? You BOTH were sovereign, TC. Please stop alleging issues that have no merit.

skypair

 

[TCGreek]

Yeah, He did. My more important thought was why didn't Adam? He NEVER had that instinct, right? Is it just because we are "needy" and "dependent" that we sin and become sinners? I think that is the more appropriate question, don't you?

1. You reference to Adam is totally irrelevant. I'll let you figure that out.

But God changed everything so that it was corrupt and dependent on Him.

2. Make sure that in your theology, you keep God where He belongs, free from the limits of human reasoning.

That is a plausible explanation. It only leaves out one thing -- that God foreknows all this before He foreordains it. Did you ever plan something and it work out just like you thought it would? God's plans always work out the way He thought they would because He foresaw them, right?

3. Are you separating God's foreknowledge from His foreordination chronologically? If you're, this is a gross misunderstanding of God and Scripture. Is this a form of process theology?

I'm all with the "election" you see but to me it doesn't mean "God chosen" -- it means "God ordained." He foreknows and if there were any "issues," He would take care of them BEFORE ordaining they transpire.

4. Both Old and New Testaments speak of God choosing. It is His prerogative.

Think about this --- the Israel of Christ's time WAS eschatological Israel. They were actually "hardened" (like Pharoah) by their leaders' rejections. This is the thing about authority -- they needed to accept Him religiously like Adam, "for the people" -- "federally." They choose the secular destiny for the people just like Adam chose the physical destiny (not spiritual) of all mankind.

5. At one level I agree, for with the coming of the Christ meant the beginning of the End, but where is your evidence that Israel was hardened because of their leaders?

Now look at Joel 2. They DO turn to Him. Now their secular destiny is with God because the leaders call a fast and turn to God, right?

6. When the fulness of the Gentiles comes in, God will once again turn to Israel (Acts 15; Rom 11).

I make it man's responsibility to accept God's proposal of "marriage." Did you abandon all your plans and "cleave" unto your wife when you proposed? Were you "sovereign" or was she when she accepted? You BOTH were sovereign, TC. Please stop alleging issues that have no merit.
skypair

7. How's marriage a parallel of what happens in salvation?

 

[skypair]

3. Are you separating God's foreknowledge from His foreordination chronologically? If you're, this is a gross misunderstanding of God and Scripture. Is this a form of process theology?

"Gross misunderstanding?" Where are you coming from with that? I don't know what you mean by process theology. Did you just make that up?

How does God know something He hasn't thought of yet?

5. At one level I agree, for with the coming of the Christ meant the beginning of the End, but where is your evidence that Israel was hardened because of their leaders?

There's a parable on that, TC. Mt 21:38-41 sums it up nicely. Jesus came into town as "King" per Dan 9:26 and who was it collaborated to crucify Him?

6. When the fulness of the Gentiles comes in, God will once again turn to Israel (Acts 15; Rom 11).

Well, I think there is some overlap there, TC. The times of the Gentiles ends at the end of the trib when the the Gentiles quit trampling the outer court of the temple underfoot. The "fulness" of the Gentiles is the pretrib rapture as I understand it.

7. How's marriage a parallel of what happens in salvation?

Have you heard that God married Israel at Sinai? And that Paul spoke of "espousing" the Corinthians to Christ, 2Cor 11:2. How do you think he did that? By offering Christ's "proposal," the gospel, for us to FREELY accept or reject. Have you not "betrothed" yourself to Christ?

skypair

 

[TCGreek]

"Gross misunderstanding?" Where are you coming from with that? I don't know what you mean by process theology. Did you just make that up?

1. I thought you were in tune with theolog. Here's a definition of process theology: "Process Theology is based the philosophy that the only absolute which exists in the world is change. Therefore, God too is constantly changing." And here's a good article on its history: http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/process.htm

How does God know something He hasn't thought of yet?

2. God is not becoming what is ought to be.

There's a parable on that, TC. Mt 21:38-41 sums it up nicely. Jesus came into town as "King" per Dan 9:26 and who was it collaborated to crucify Him?

3. Israel's rejection of their Messiah is part of God's plan.

Well, I think there is some overlap there, TC. The times of the Gentiles ends at the end of the trib when the the Gentiles quit trampling the outer court of the temple underfoot. The "fulness" of the Gentiles is the pretrib rapture as I understand it.

4. You will find no objection in me.

Have you heard that God married Israel at Sinai? And that Paul spoke of "espousing" the Corinthians to Christ, 2Cor 11:2. How do you think he did that? By offering Christ's "proposal," the gospel, for us to FREELY accept or reject. Have you not "betrothed" yourself to Christ?

skypair

5. Then, avoid the analogical fallacy.

 

[skypair]

1. I thought you were in tune with theolog. Here's a definition of process theology: "Process Theology is based the philosophy that the only absolute which exists in the world is change. Therefore, God too is constantly changing." And here's a good article on its history: http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/process.htm

Ah! We have "process theology" at FedEx where I work!! "Change or get left behind!" :laugh:

But no, that isn't what I believe.

How does God know something He hasn't thought of yet?

2. God is not becoming what is ought to be.[/quote] Huh? Which keystrokes did you miss or add??? We aren't talking about God becoming -- we're talking about His creation becoming.

3. Israel's rejection of their Messiah is part of God's plan.

Now it is. At some point in before creation, God foreknew it and incorporated it into His plan.

It seems to be "eternity" where your problem lies. What is eternity? To me, it is time without beginning or end -- but it is still time. The thing that distinguishes time from eternity past is that before time, there was God alone. When He created time, something else had existence besides God. For them to have existence, God had to conceive of them, right?

How do you understand our eternity? Does the "end of time" designate no more time and no more change? Is "eternal life" devoid of anything but existence? IOW will we be like God's "pet rocks?" Or will we actually continue to interact with one another and with Him forever?

5. Then, avoid the analogical fallacy.

How did it become an "analogical fallacy?" I showed you where it was in scripture both for OT and NT. Is it false because you haven't been "espoused" to Christ? Eph 5 says of the husband-wife relationship (particularly that husband being the "head") "...but I speak concerning Christ and His church." Were you unaware of that as well?

I am enjoying our conversation but I feel as if you aren't thinking about what I am saying very much. Not getting ADD on me, are you? :laugh:

skypair

 

[TCGreek]

Ah! We have "process theology" at FedEx where I work!! "Change or get left behind!" :laugh:

But no, that isn't what I believe.

1. Once you're not arguing that God is becoming what He will eventually be, then you're not. Although, some of your comments pointed in that direction.

Now it is. At some point in before creation, God foreknew it and incorporated it into His plan.

2. God sees everything at once and knows everything at the same time.

It seems to be "eternity" where your problem lies. What is eternity? To me, it is time without beginning or end -- but it is still time. The thing that distinguishes time from eternity past is that before time, there was God alone. When He created time, something else had existence besides God. For them to have existence, God had to conceive of them, right?

3. However you and I conceive of eternity, one thing is sure: it represents something that is.

How do you understand our eternity? Does the "end of time" designate no more time and no more change? Is "eternal life" devoid of anything but existence? IOW will we be like God's "pet rocks?" Or will we actually continue to interact with one another and with Him forever?

4. Whatever that eternal state is, it is going to be glorious and worth the wait, if you know what I mean--Rev 21-22 give us a glimpse, I suppose.

How did it become an "analogical fallacy?" I showed you where it was in scripture both for OT and NT. Is it false because you haven't been "espoused" to Christ? Eph 5 says of the husband-wife relationship (particularly that husband being the "head") "...but I speak concerning Christ and His church." Were you unaware of that as well?

5. When you try to make everything from one arena correspond exactly with that in another, which you're trying to illustrate.

6. I'm aware of Eph. 5 and the analogy, but those Christ, who is the head, like us husband, esp. around the kitchen?

I am enjoying our conversation but I feel as if you aren't thinking about what I am saying very much. Not getting ADD on me, are you? :laugh:

skypair

7. Well, I'm still with you here. :thumbs:

 

[skypair]

2. God sees everything at once and knows everything at the same time.

Where does that come from? So creation is NOT "intelligent design" after all? Cause if He knew it all at once and didn't have to think about how He would create angels, earth, man, etc., it would almost force me to believe that someone else created it. Wouldn't if you?

5. When you try to make everything from one arena correspond exactly with that in another, which you're trying to illustrate.

Well, not everything, but God even compares Israel now with His divorced wife as well. There are a lot of correspondences, TC, one of them being the "proposal" and "acceptance."

6. I'm aware of Eph. 5 and the analogy, but those Christ, who is the head, like us husband, esp. around the kitchen?

I found He's aroung pretty much everywhere "getting under foot." :laugh: Two days ago, He was on the golf course with me and gave me a great lesson! I went from double bogying the first 8 holes to playing 2 over par the last 10. I wish He has showed me sooner this year but I admit, I was getting bitter rather than seeking His help. :godisgood:

skypair

 

[TCGreek]

Where does that come from? So creation is NOT "intelligent design" after all? Cause if He knew it all at once and didn't have to think about how He would create angels, earth, man, etc., it would almost force me to believe that someone else created it. Wouldn't if you?

1. God decided to go on display with His glory (Heb 2:10), hence creation and what it entails. What other reason is there?

2. Isaiah 46:10 speaks of the omniscience of God, of things past, present and future--which only make sense in a space-time-dimension universe.

Well, not everything, but God even compares Israel now with His divorced wife as well. There are a lot of correspondences, TC, one of them being the "proposal" and "acceptance."

3. Moses tells us Why God chose Israel in the first place (Deut. 7:7, 8). It was all unilateral, going back to Abraham.

I found He's aroung pretty much everywhere "getting under foot." :laugh: Two days ago, He was on the golf course with me and gave me a great lesson! I went from double bogying the first 8 holes to playing 2 over par the last 10. I wish He has showed me sooner this year but I admit, I was getting bitter rather than seeking His help. :godisgood:

skypair

4. God is good every time, even those times when He doesn't seem to be helping out, even with a golf swing. :laugh:

 

[skypair]

Hey TC! :wavey:

1. God decided to go on display with His glory (Heb 2:10), hence creation and what it entails. What other reason is there?

Actually, there's another reason. God gave it to us in the imagery of Adam -- it is not good for Him to be alone. And beasts -- or in God's case, angels -- don't hack it. They're only 2 dimensional as beasts are before us.

2. Isaiah 46:10 speaks of the omniscience of God, of things past, present and future--which only make sense in a space-time-dimension universe.

Exactly! But now consider what that means. There was a time befoe time when all this was in His foreknowledge. But there was a time before that that it wasn't even conceived yet so He didn't know it. He knew everything there was to know but it didn't include what would happen in the "fabric" of time.

Think of it this way --- eternity past is not timelessness. It is merely an un-beginning expression of time. Only God is eternal -- everything else has a beginning, including God's foreknowledge.

3. Moses tells us Why God chose Israel in the first place (Deut. 7:7, 8). It was all unilateral, going back to Abraham.

Well, this comment is totally off track. Do you not believe that God could woo Israel as Christ woos the church to which He is not married yet? God married Israel at Sinai -- Christ marries the church in heaven (after the rapture).

I'm surprised and somewhat disappointed in you not seeing this marriage thing, TC.

4. God is good every time, even those times when He doesn't seem to be helping out, even with a golf swing. :laugh:

It's one thing to know and believe it. It's another to apply it. :saint:

skypair

 

[TCGreek]

Hey TC! :wavey:

I'm still here. :wavey:

Actually, there's another reason. God gave it to us in the imagery of Adam -- it is not good for Him to be alone. And beasts -- or in God's case, angels -- don't hack it. They're only 2 dimensional as beasts are before us.

1. God created us for His glory (Isa 43:6, 7). I thought the alone thing was about Eve!

Exactly! But now consider what that means. There was a time befoe time when all this was in His foreknowledge. But there was a time before that that it wasn't even conceived yet so He didn't know it. He knew everything there was to know but it didn't include what would happen in the "fabric" of time.

2. And what does that prove about God and us? Does that make us any smarter? I like to sleelp peacefully at night. :laugh:

Think of it this way --- eternity past is not timelessness. It is merely an un-beginning expression of time. Only God is eternal -- everything else has a beginning, including God's foreknowledge.

3. And when was that beginning?

Well, this comment is totally off track. Do you not believe that God could woo Israel as Christ woos the church to which He is not married yet? God married Israel at Sinai -- Christ marries the church in heaven (after the rapture).

4. The Bible nowhere says that God had to woo Israel (read Deut. 7:7, 8 and Eze 16:1-22).

I'm surprised and somewhat disappointed in you not seeing this marriage thing, TC.

5. No one can read Scripture without appreciate the marriage motif, but I won't take it to ridiculous extremes and commit the analogy fallacy.

I tried golf, but I ran out of patience. :BangHead:

 

[skypair]

I'm still here. :wavey:

Good. I'm on 64+ hour layover in Newark and I need Christian company! But retiring for good in 8 days makes it bearable. Supposed to close on the house I"m selling Friday and move to TX on Tuesday! Heavenly!

1. God created us for His glory (Isa 43:6, 7). I thought the alone thing was about Eve!

Well, you know there are "big pictures" in scripture too, right? Like 7 days of creation -> 7 X 1000 years to get the KoG back? Adam being alone is just one of the "pictures" God gives us. Take it or leave it. I find it relevant.

2. And what does that prove about God and us? Does that make us any smarter? I like to sleelp peacefully at night. :laugh:

Well, just trying to reason through 1) what eternity past is and 2) whether foreknowledge had a beginning. Like what do you think calling God "Alpha and Omega" means?

3. And when was that beginning?

The beginning of something other than God, I would say. And, of course, before that God "previewed" it all and assembled His plan. But the original thought, in my mind, is fellowship. I mean, you can't even have glory (as you assert) without fellowship, can you?

4. The Bible nowhere says that God had to woo Israel (read Deut. 7:7, 8 and Eze 16:1-22).

That Ezek 16 is beautiful! But it does show that Israel grew up and God found "her" beautiful and covenanted (the "marriage" at Sinai, Jer 3:14) with her and made a kingdom of her dressing her in linen and silk. But here in Ezek 16 we see the Jer 3:8 day -- "I had given her [Israel]... a bill of divorcement..." They had sacrificed their literal children, babies, to idols! And God was about to leave her in prospect of the days when He will take her back, Jer 3:15-18! Wow!

5. No one can read Scripture without appreciate the marriage motif, but I won't take it to ridiculous extremes and commit the analogy falsely.

You don't appreciate what Paul said? What God said? These are not ridiculous or faulty. Do you believe there is a marriage in heaven per Mt 25:1-13 and wedding feast on the earth afterward, Rev 19:9, Mt 22:1-14? Do you not see that God takes back His wife in Rev 21:1? You know, Calvinism can find imagery in Lazarus resurrection -- why not in these?

I tried golf, but I ran out of patience. :BangHead:

I do it mostly to stay in shape. I do the treadmill but it is boring.

skypair

 

[TCGreek]

Good. I'm on 64+ hour layover in Newark and I need Christian company! But retiring for good in 8 days makes it bearable. Supposed to close on the house I"m selling Friday and move to TX on Tuesday! Heavenly!

Wish you God's blessing in those ventures.

Well, you know there are "big pictures" in scripture too, right? Like 7 days of creation -> 7 X 1000 years to get the KoG back? Adam being alone is just one of the "pictures" God gives us. Take it or leave it. I find it relevant.

1. Sounds like those Bible codes approach to Scripture to me. I'm a simpleton in many ways--I take Scripture like it is and use Scripture to interpret Scripture some stuff, I really don't see. Maybe it's esoteric knowledge, only for a chosen few.

Well, just trying to reason through 1) what eternity past is and 2) whether foreknowledge had a beginning. Like what do you think calling God "Alpha and Omega" means?

2. I was reading theologian Donald Bloesch recently and he said that eternity is not unending time in the past and unending time in the future, but fulness of time in reference to God. I quite agree with Dr. Bloesch on that one.

3. We live in a space-time dimension so God must relate to us in those terms, as in the case of His foreknowledge.

The beginning of something other than God, I would say. And, of course, before that God "previewed" it all and assembled His plan. But the original thought, in my mind, is fellowship. I mean, you can't even have glory (as you assert) without fellowship, can you?

4. Well, the very idea of the Trinity assumes community. I quite agree because of the burden of Scripture (Heb 2:10 and 1 Pet 3:18).

That Ezek 16 is beautiful! But it does show that Israel grew up and God found "her" beautiful and covenanted (the "marriage" at Sinai, Jer 3:14) with her and made a kingdom of her dressing her in linen and silk. But here in Ezek 16 we see the Jer 3:8 day -- "I had given her [Israel]... a bill of divorcement..." They had sacrificed their literal children, babies, to idols! And God was about to leave her in prospect of the days when He will take her back, Jer 3:15-18! Wow!

5. Israel didn't choose God; God chose Israel (Deut 7:7, 8). Yes, I find Eze 16 to be very vivid.

You don't appreciate what Paul said? What God said? These are not ridiculous or faulty. Do you believe there is a marriage in heaven per Mt 25:1-13 and wedding feast on the earth afterward, Rev 19:9, Mt 22:1-14? Do you not see that God takes back His wife in Rev 21:1? You know, Calvinism can find imagery in Lazarus resurrection -- why not in these?

6. I appreciate the marital language of Scripture, but Scripture must provide the parameters, not me. If left up to us, we can go from one extreme to the other.

I do it mostly to stay in shape. I do the treadmill but it is boring.

skypair

I turn to jogging now. :thumbs:

 

[skypair]

Wish you God's blessing in those ventures.

Thank you. God seems, since last March, to be setting my face like flint toward these life-changing decisions. Everything --- I mean EVERYTHING --- has fallen into place just exactly when it was needed! I was rehearsing last night every such secular turning point in my life before and there hasn't been a one that was so clear. I guess God just means for me to have more time for BB (to most other BBer's dread :laugh!

1. Sounds like those Bible codes approach to Scripture to me. I'm a simpleton in many ways--I take Scripture like it is and use Scripture to interpret Scripture some stuff, I really don't see. Maybe it's esoteric knowledge, only for a chosen few.

Uh... naw. It does sometimes seem like over-allegorization. Maybe reading too much into scripture. I wouldn't use it to prove doctrine but if it appears to coincide with doctrine ... yeah.

This thing about God being alone in eternity and desiring fellowship --- hasn't He exhibited this througout scripture? Hasn't His desire of us been for fellowship? for His wisdom to be in us, for His will to be our will, for us to rejoice in the things that make Him happy? That's why there was an Eve for Adam, a right wife for you, and why Christ will take us as His bride --- that the twain shall be one in everything but personhood.

2. I was reading theologian Donald Bloesch recently and he said that eternity is not unending time in the past and unending time in the future, but fulness of time in reference to God. I quite agree with Dr. Bloesch on that one.

I'm not sure I understand that concept. The doctrine book I was just reading by Evans (?? don't know his credentials) posited the "time continuum," the first theory you mentioned.

There's only 2 mentions I can find of "fulness of times" -- Gal 4:4 and Eph 1:10. The first seems to speak of the fulness of the dispensation of law and the latter of the fulness of all the dispensations that God is going to carry out in human history. The latter relates, IMO, to Rev 21-22 and 1Cor 15:24-28. I'll quote them below for your consideration (I'm assuming you don't use Instaverse?). But as for God being all the dispensations, maybe that could be reworked where I could understand.

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,...

That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:..."

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."

3. We live in a space-time dimension so God must relate to us in those terms, as in the case of His foreknowledge.

If I am understanding him right, he is of those who see God "standing outside of" time. I don't think you can define the meaning of eternity past and future in that way. I think you can say that there was a time when time bagan to be "counted" according to something -- such as by the creation of the heavens and the earth, Gen 1:1.

But perhaps that is where our concepts of "foreknowledge" diverge. If God exists outside of time, then there is no such thing as "foreknowledge" with Him, right?

4. Well, the very idea of the Trinity assumes community. I quite agree because of the burden of Scripture (Heb 2:10 and 1 Pet 3:18).

Well, that's good. I guess I got ahead of myself in explaining it above through Adam and Eve, husband and wife, etc. then.

5. Israel didn't choose God; God chose Israel (Deut 7:7, 8). Yes, I find Eze 16 to be very vivid.

Israel chose God in leaving Egypt, TC. Just like we choose God by repenting and turning to Him -- which is required for us to access our salvation, BTW. This is one very clear "ensample" (1Cor 10:11) that we are supposed to apply to ourselves. When they chose to "go with Him," then He took them out with a mighty hand.

6. I appreciate the marital language of Scripture, but Scripture must provide the parameters, not me. If left up to us, we can go from one extreme to the other.

I'm sorry you don't understand this "great mystery," TC. (Eph 5:32) You do know that the church is supposed to understand these, don't you? (1Cor 4:1 -- "Let a man so account of us, [1] as of the ministers of Christ, and [2] stewards of the mysteries of God.")

You are also aware of who doesn't understand them, I take it?

I turn to jogging now. :thumbs:

Excellent! I did that until about 12 years ago when my neuromas (nerve damage to the balls of my feet) got to me. I still walk 3 miles every other day besides playing golf, though. Thankfully, I haven't had any other physical problems. I've always told my wife, "Come the day I can't walk, just shoot me!"

skypair

 

[TCGreek]

Thank you. God seems, since last March, to be setting my face like flint toward these life-changing decisions. Everything --- I mean EVERYTHING --- has fallen into place just exactly when it was needed! I was rehearsing last night every such secular turning point in my life before and there hasn't been a one that was so clear. I guess God just means for me to have more time for BB (to most other BBer's dread :laugh!

1. Me too! What a dread that is going to be! :laugh:

Uh... naw. It does sometimes seem like over-allegorization. Maybe reading too much into scripture. I wouldn't use it to prove doctrine but if it appears to coincide with doctrine ... yeah.

2. Once doctrine is established from clearer passages of Scripture, then we can say that--but it must be established from clearer texts.

This thing about God being alone in eternity and desiring fellowship --- hasn't He exhibited this througout scripture? Hasn't His desire of us been for fellowship? for His wisdom to be in us, for His will to be our will, for us to rejoice in the things that make Him happy? That's why there was an Eve for Adam, a right wife for you, and why Christ will take us as His bride --- that the twain shall be one in everything but personhood.

3. The Trinity has existed for all-eternity in community. To say that God needed our fellowship, is to show deficiencies in God that are only going to be met through fellowship with His creatures--I don't buy that.

4. Whatever God does, He does according to the good pleasure of His will (Eph 1:11; Ps 115:3).

I'm not sure I understand that concept. The doctrine book I was just reading by Evans (?? don't know his credentials) posited the "time continuum," the first theory you mentioned.

5. Exactly, because time continuum only applies to a space-time dimension, which is where we are--but for God there is not such thing as time to measure as we know time--therefore He must be the fullness of time--whatever that means.

There's only 2 mentions I can find of "fulness of times" -- Gal 4:4 and Eph 1:10. The first seems to speak of the fulness of the dispensation of law and the latter of the fulness of all the dispensations that God is going to carry out in human history. The latter relates, IMO, to Rev 21-22 and 1Cor 15:24-28. I'll quote them below for your consideration (I'm assuming you don't use Instaverse?). But as for God being all the dispensations, maybe that could be reworked where I could understand.

6. Now that is a different concept. What I sense Dr. Bloesch is saying is that time really has no significance to a God who simply IS. "Fulness of times" only points to a calender activity in this space-time universe.

If I am understanding him right, he is of those who see God "standing outside of" time. I don't think you can define the meaning of eternity past and future in that way. I think you can say that there was a time when time bagan to be "counted" according to something -- such as by the creation of the heavens and the earth, Gen 1:1.

7. He would agree to that--I too. :thumbs:

But perhaps that is where our concepts of "foreknowledge" diverge. If God exists outside of time, then there is no such thing as "foreknowledge" with Him, right?

8. Correct!

Israel chose God in leaving Egypt, TC. Just like we choose God by repenting and turning to Him -- which is required for us to access our salvation, BTW. This is one very clear "ensample" (1Cor 10:11) that we are supposed to apply to ourselves. When they chose to "go with Him," then He took them out with a mighty hand.

9. Israel only chose God because God first chose them (Deut. 7:7, 8).

I'm sorry you don't understand this "great mystery," TC. (Eph 5:32) You do know that the church is supposed to understand these, don't you? (1Cor 4:1 -- "Let a man so account of us, [1] as of the ministers of Christ, and [2] stewards of the mysteries of God.")

You are also aware of who doesn't understand them, I take it?

Excellent! I did that until about 12 years ago when my neuromas (nerve damage to the balls of my feet) got to me. I still walk 3 miles every other day besides playing golf, though. Thankfully, I haven't had any other physical problems. I've always told my wife, "Come the day I can't walk, just shoot me!"

skypair[/QUOTE]

 

[skypair]

3. The Trinity has existed for all-eternity in community. To say that God needed our fellowship, is to show deficiencies in God that are only going to be met through fellowship with His creatures--I don't buy that.

I'm working on the idea that God WAS three-in-ONE -- as we are now. That is why He had no "fellowship." If you ONE-in-three, He had fellowship with Himself, TC. Do you have good fellowship with yourself? Are you an "island?"

quote]4. Whatever God does, He does according to the good pleasure of His will (Eph 1:11; Ps 115:3).[/quote] Oh, so now He's a selfish God? Let billions burn? fiddle while Rome burns? No, that's a perverse characterization, TC. It isolates 2 verses of scripture and makes a doctrine out of them by misinterpretting them!

5. Exactly, because time continuum only applies to a space-time dimension, which is where we are--but for God there is not such thing as time to measure as we know time--therefore He must be the fullness of time--whatever that means.

Exactly, "whatever that means." We can't truly define terms with indefinite terms.

"Time continuum applies to space-time continuum" -- is God in this space-time continuum with us? I'm trying to get your thoughts because we have obviously come to a term we don't understand the same though we both study scripture. Pls lay do what you do believe so we can discuss.

6. Now that is a different concept. What I sense Dr. Bloesch is saying is that time really has no significance to a God who simply IS. "Fulness of times" only points to a calender activity in this space-time universe.

I thought about an interesting concept last night ---- God is "I AM" but sin came because Lucifer and Adam ad infinitum realized "I am" -- an independent self! How does a "person" deal with that truth in the light of God having/knowing/controlling everything?

7. He would agree to that--I too. :thumbs:

8. Correct!

So why does scripture use the term "foreknowledge?" It's because in Paul's or any other writer's understanding, there was a "sequence of events" even with God, right?

9. Israel only chose God because God first chose them (Deut. 7:7, 8).

You are, of course, right in the secular world. He chose them in Abraham, right? He chose all of them in Abraham. But how many of them "dropped what they were doing" and went to the land promised to Abraham and his descendants? TC, there were 400 years of Jews in Egypt and none that we know of went back to claim their inheritance.

Similarly, there are so many Gentiles that have a "open invitation" to Christ -- they are "chosen" if they so desire. Are they waiting for their Moses/Messiah to come? He's come, hasn't He?

I guess you missed my comments about the "great mystery." Care to comment?

skypair

 

[TCGreek]

I'm working on the idea that God WAS three-in-ONE -- as we are now. That is why He had no "fellowship." If you ONE-in-three, He had fellowship with Himself, TC. Do you have good fellowship with yourself? Are you an "island?"

1. What then is your concept of the Trinity?

4. Whatever God does, He does according to the good pleasure of His will (Eph 1:11; Ps 115:3).

Oh, so now He's a selfish God? Let billions burn? fiddle while Rome burns? No, that's a perverse characterization, TC. It isolates 2 verses of scripture and makes a doctrine out of them by misinterpretting them!

2. I'm only quoting the Scripture, Skypair. Tell me then, what those Scriptures mean? It seems like we want a God that we can domesticate.

"Time continuum applies to space-time continuum" -- is God in this space-time continuum with us? I'm trying to get your thoughts because we have obviously come to a term we don't understand the same though we both study scripture. Pls lay do what you do believe so we can discuss.

3. Yes, God is a transcendent, yet imminent God. In a real sense He is here with us. Isn't that what the Bible says? But is He bound by time like us? Not at all! One day is like a thousands years and a thousand years like one day.

I thought about an interesting concept last night ---- God is "I AM" but sin came because Lucifer and Adam ad infinitum realized "I am" -- an independent self! How does a "person" deal with that truth in the light of God having/knowing/controlling everything?

4. We must both admit, that if we maintain the absolute God of the Scriptures, who created man with free moral agency, then there's a dimension to this creation that we will never understand.

5. I've heard theologians say that Adam was put on probation for a period, but he sinned, and hence the mess we are all in. Quite frankly, I do not understand it all.

So why does scripture use the term "foreknowledge?" It's because in Paul's or any other writer's understanding, there was a "sequence of events" even with God, right?

6. A sequence of events for the benefit of man, for only in that way can a transcendent God make sense to finite man.

You are, of course, right in the secular world. He chose them in Abraham, right? He chose all of them in Abraham. But how many of them "dropped what they were doing" and went to the land promised to Abraham and his descendants? TC, there were 400 years of Jews in Egypt and none that we know of went back to claim their inheritance.

Similarly, there are so many Gentiles that have a "open invitation" to Christ -- they are "chosen" if they so desire. Are they waiting for their Moses/Messiah to come? He's come, hasn't He?

7. You and I will continue to differ at this point. I see no evidence of what you are proposing in Scripture, whether OT or NT.

I guess you missed my comments about the "great mystery." Care to comment?

skypair

8. At one level, we share in marriage because of the greater marriage to come. That is why in the resurrection, we are not going to be involved in the marital. But for now, we benefit from marriage, but its greater signifance points to another.

 

[skypair]

1. What then is your concept of the Trinity?

Here's my thought --- In eternity past, God was One being, Three in One, like we are. That, to me, is when He was alone. I AM was all there was. All of creation was conceived and God "divided" Himself into 3 Persons for the very purpose of creating, in 3 phases, a people to fellowship with Him eternally.

2. I'm only quoting the Scripture, Skypair. Tell me then, what those Scriptures mean? It seems like we want a God that we can domesticate.

It's probably the picture you paint as "God's pleasure" that I react to. Let's agree that He does all things according to His will but allows many things to happen that are not His will or pleasure, right?

But is He bound by time like us? Not at all!

To the extent that He created time for His purposes, He has bound Himself (and especially when He "visited" us) to time. And in fact, there are certain prophecies that He promised to fulfill in a time certain -- the captivity in Egypt, in Babylon, the coming of the King Jesus in 483 years, etc. Keeping promises is binding, no?

And so the issue of "foreknowledge" becomes even more defined. God did "think this all through" beforehand. He did foreordain His "dealings" with them according to men's decisions and actions.

4. We must both admit, that if we maintain the absolute God of the Scriptures, who created man with free moral agency, then there's a dimension to this creation that we will never understand.

I think the "I am" is pretty simple. It is realization of self. It's the thing that distinguishes us, so my science teachers said, from the beasts. We have a soul or conscience that is aware of self as distinct from God. It causes "selfishness."

5. I've heard theologians say that Adam was put on probation for a period, but he sinned, and hence the mess we are all in. Quite frankly, I do not understand it all.

There was a period when Adam was NOT under a microscope -- "challenged." It was before Eve came along! I believe that it was Eve that gave Adam an "alternative" to God. And God had commanded, "for her, man shall leave his Father and mother and cleave unto his wife."

Eve, like us, was tempted and sinned. As husband, what does Adam (or God or Christ) do? Purposely "leave and cleave" in accordance with with God's command. Isn't that an image of God and Christ? Take sin on our behalf so that He might rescue us? Sure, God could destroy us just as Adam could have rejected the fruit and sent Eve into condemnation alone.

Instead, Adam was a HUGE picture of Jesus, wasn't he? He was not deceived but took the fruit anyway since Eve "was a goner." He committed himself to Eve and God committed Himself to Israel (and Christ to the church). WHY? "It is not good that man [nor God] should be alone."

6. A sequence of events for the benefit of man, for only in that way can a transcendent God make sense to finite man.

I think you are probably right there. I wish you would understand this whole thing on the level of the "great mystery." Do you remember when you were single? Did you feel "complete?"

And you know, one of the things they say a man needs is adoration. Without that, God is like "one hand clapping," right?

7. You and I will continue to differ at this point. I see no evidence of what you are proposing in Scripture, whether OT or NT.

Sorry for you. God deals with men on 3 levels and that is why there are 3 "phases" to salvation -- justification (soul), sanctification (spirit), glorification (body). God's "dealings" are structured that way. Even Israel is described by 3 plants -- olive tree, fig tree, grapevine. Do you comprehend the differences?

8. At one level, we share in marriage because of the greater marriage to come. That is why in the resurrection, we are not going to be involved in the marital. But for now, we benefit from marriage, but its greater signifance points to another.

Well, as you can see from the previous -- the marriage symbology is HUGE! If you can't see it, you miss what God is doing all this for.
You've missed the "courtship," the "proposal," the "espousal" (remember Mary who was espoused before her marriage?). TC, when do you see the marriage taking place? and where?

skypair

 

[TCGreek]

Here's my thought --- In eternity past, God was One being, Three in One, like we are. That, to me, is when He was alone. I AM was all there was. All of creation was conceived and God "divided" Himself into 3 Persons for the very purpose of creating, in 3 phases, a people to fellowship with Him eternally.

1. So before creation God was only ONE being and not three distinctive persons, making up the Trinity. If I understand you correctly, before creation there was no Trinity. Correct?

2. What is the difference between your view and the heresy of Sabellianism, which is reflected in Oneness Pentecostals.

It's probably the picture you paint as "God's pleasure" that I react to. Let's agree that He does all things according to His will but allows many things to happen that are not His will or pleasure, right?

3. God's pleasure should not be equated with our finite sense of pleasure (Isa. 55).

To the extent that He created time for His purposes, He has bound Himself (and especially when He "visited" us) to time. And in fact, there are certain prophecies that He promised to fulfill in a time certain -- the captivity in Egypt, in Babylon, the coming of the King Jesus in 483 years, etc. Keeping promises is binding, no?

4. I find no point of disagree here. :thumbs:

And so the issue of "foreknowledge" becomes even more defined. God did "think this all through" beforehand. He did foreordain His "dealings" with them according to men's decisions and actions.

5. The weight of Luke 22:22, I see.

I think the "I am" is pretty simple. It is realization of self. It's the thing that distinguishes us, so my science teachers said, from the beasts. We have a soul or conscience that is aware of self as distinct from God. It causes "selfishness."

6. Sounds a bit Freudian, but I'll stick with the simple Hebrew behind "I am," which points to "the-self-existing-One.

There was a period when Adam was NOT under a microscope -- "challenged." It was before Eve came along! I believe that it was Eve that gave Adam an "alternative" to God. And God had commanded, "for her, man shall leave his Father and mother and cleave unto his wife."

7. Scripture is silent on this issue, so your speculations are just as good as mine. :thumbs:

Eve, like us, was tempted and sinned. As husband, what does Adam (or God or Christ) do? Purposely "leave and cleave" in accordance with with God's command. Isn't that an image of God and Christ? Take sin on our behalf so that He might rescue us? Sure, God could destroy us just as Adam could have rejected the fruit and sent Eve into condemnation alone.

8. I see some similarities in Paul (Rom 5; 1Cor 15). I work with the data I see, nothing more.

Instead, Adam was a HUGE picture of Jesus, wasn't he? He was not deceived but took the fruit anyway since Eve "was a goner." He committed himself to Eve and God committed Himself to Israel (and Christ to the church). WHY? "It is not good that man [nor God] should be alone."

9. At one level, I agree with you. Good analogies.

I think you are probably right there. I wish you would understand this whole thing on the level of the "great mystery." Do you remember when you were single? Did you feel "complete?"

10. Yet, there were no deficiencies in God, so there's a level of Him going public with His glory that we'll never truly understand (Rom 11:33-36).

And you know, one of the things they say a man needs is adoration. Without that, God is like "one hand clapping," right?

11. Are you saying that God has some kind of deficiency before He created man?

Sorry for you. God deals with men on 3 levels and that is why there are 3 "phases" to salvation -- justification (soul), sanctification (spirit), glorification (body). God's "dealings" are structured that way. Even Israel is described by 3 plants -- olive tree, fig tree, grapevine. Do you comprehend the differences?

12. I do agree with these differences, for they are in Scripture.

Well, as you can see from the previous -- the marriage symbology is HUGE! If you can't see it, you miss what God is doing all this for.
You've missed the "courtship," the "proposal," the "espousal" (remember Mary who was espoused before her marriage?). TC, when do you see the marriage taking place? and where?

skypair

13. I appreciate the marital analogy very much, but I will stay with the confines of the biblical data on the issue. For example, in this marital relationship with God, we are not God's equal, as can be seen in that unilateral covenant with Abraham.

 

[skypair]

1. So before creation God was only ONE being and not three distinctive persons, making up the Trinity. If I understand you correctly, before creation there was no Trinity. Correct?

2. What is the difference between your view and the heresy of Sabellianism, which is reflected in Oneness Pentecostals.

It does not continue in our time is the difference, I believe. But if it "tweeks" you fancy, I also believe that in the New Earth God will be One again!

3. God's pleasure should not be equated with our finite sense of pleasure (Isa. 55).

Well, of course not -- so why do you? Why do you accuse me of doing so?

5. The weight of Luke 22:22, I see.

Yes, "woe" if one chooses against God.

6. Sounds a bit Freudian, but I'll stick with the simple Hebrew behind "I am," which points to "the-self-existing-One.

So you "are not?" I'm not sure what a statement about God has to do with your comment.

7. Scripture is silent on this issue, so your speculations are just as good as mine. :thumbs: [/qutoe] There's no silence about "but Adam was not deceived." How do YOU explain that?

[qoote]8. I see some similarities in Paul (Rom 5; 1Cor 15). I work with the data I see, nothing more.

So no "mysteries" come into focus yet, eh? And that doesn't bother you?

10. Yet, there were no deficiencies in God, so there's a level of Him going public with His glory that we'll never truly understand (Rom 11:33-36).

"We'll never understand." Are you going to hide behind that all your life? If God said He was lonely, you wouldn't beleive it, right?

11. Are you saying that God has some kind of deficiency before He created man?

Would you be saying the Adam had no "deficiency?" God thought he did. Do you think Adam thought so?

13. I appreciate the marital analogy very much, but I will stay with the confines of the biblical data on the issue. For example, in this marital relationship with God, we are not God's equal, as can be seen in that unilateral covenant with Abraham.

It's not just "analogy," TC. It's MYSTERY. The Jews "stayed within the confines of the biblical data," the "letter," and didn't see the mysteries either! Are you willing to be as "partially blind" as they are?

I'm not saying that you are not saved --- I'm saying that you are not moving forward into the "knowledge and faith of Christ." You are letting some "blind alley" hold you back.

skypair